The God Question

To begin with, let's clear up a little matter that will save trouble later on. There can be no scientific proof for God. None. The possibility is unintelligible. If God is at all like Christians believe Him to be, then there can be no clear, demonstrable, and repeatable protocol that may be subjected to any of the methods of science. There is nothing to observe, nothing to measure, nothing to experiment on.

Richard Dawkins and other atheist fundamentalists aren't saying anything at all when they point out that there is no proof for God. Adherents of Intelligent Design theory are equally mistaken in their attempt to adduce physical evidence for special creation. The question of God's existence is not the domain of science, but of reason. We can have reasoned insight into the God question, but not scientific proof.

That being said, we can know that God, or at least something very like the Christian concept of God, must exist. Reality as we know it is unintelligible without the existence of God, or what I shall call god. As noted in a previous post, God has certain attributes in the common conception, attributes which, unlike god's mere existence, are not knowable by reason. Consequently, the question to be addressed is the existence of god, and what we can know of him/her/it/???.

The next two posts will present the three primary arguments for the existence of god, the argument from desire, the argument from causality, and the argument from being. Each one fits into the other to produce a proof (in the logical sense) that is both cogent and consistent. Together, I believe they show that atheism, or a more precise term, a-deism, is both incoherent and unintelligible.

The Three Basic Questions

Certainly many people feel very strongly about the Catholic vs. Protestant debate, but it seems to me that this question is moot until three others have been addressed:

1. The god question. Yes, god rather than God. God, if not referring to a particular conception of deity, at least has a number of inherent assumptions lumped in with it. I posit that we must establish the intelligibility of god (which we can't even really define yet), before looking at whether god is really God.

2. The Jesus question. Jesus existed. That is not really a question. What is a question is whether he was more than a first century Jewish teacher, whether he was, rather is, the Incarnated God, that is, the Jewish God made flesh. The Jesus question is tied up in the god question. If there is not God, and a particular conception of God, then the common view of Jesus is problematic. From the other side, Jesus' claims of divinity radically altered the conception of God in Judaism, which places a unique burden of warrant on the Christian church. She must argue for both the Jewish conception of Jahweh and the transformation of that conception by the Church. These two, seemingly opposing viewpoints must both be reasoned out and reconciled.

3. The Christianity question. Flowing from the Jesus question is the question of what he intended to do. Did he found a church? If so, is one of the competing Jesus movements correct over and against the others? Can we even know that, and, if so, how?

Admittedly, these are huge questions, but remember that I am not offering a defense for the Christian faith per se. Rather, by piecing out various arguments for each of these matters upon which both Catholics and Protestants already agree, I hope to clearly demonstrate my intended mode of argumentation and set the stage for certain questions to be addressed later. Enough for now.

Vuja De

Deja Vu is going somewhere you've never been and feeling like you've been there before. Vuja de is going somewhere you visit all the time and wondering where the hell you are. Welcome to my life. Also, welcome to my blog.

As the title indicates, I am Catholic, a happy (and, after a fashion, relieved) convert from the Baptist church (or "church"). I am indeed a proud Papist. This blog is an attempt to account for that pride, to explain, not necessarily the classical apologetic arguments for Catholicism, but rather my own way of thinking about some of the issues.

A large part of knowing where you are is having a clear grasp on how you got there. These posts will record some of my arguments for the various Catholic teachings with which many Protestants disagree. My primary tool will be reason, rather than Scripture. Many Protestant readers will reject my arguments on that basis alone. I know many good believers who don't actually believe that logic is a sufficient reason to believe a theological truth. That's fine, but we have a problem if we can only argue from Scripture and fail to accord reason an equal probative value on those question that it can address.

Put simply, we may disagree about what Scripture means, but we may not disagree about reasoned insight without denying the law of non-contradiction and the basic intelligibility of the world. That is not to say that I will make no appeal to Scripture, but I have no interest in a game of "whose proof text is better." Indeed, in my experience, even the more sophisticated argumentation, making use of highly nuanced readings of the original languages tend to be little more than glorified proof texting. Reason has its limits. There are certain questions it can't answer, but it can answer many that are very important.

Understand that my goal is not to convert, but to elucidate. Note that I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. Do not take my words as an official presentation of Catholic teaching. While I want to be faithful to the Magisterium, I am fallible, and expect to miss some things. Any Catholic readers are invited and even requested to point out any errors you see. Confutations from non-Catholics are welcome, but don't start an argument you aren't willing to finish. If you aren't interested in genuine dialog, please save a few electrons. Enough for now.